Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXYIw-0004zA-EL for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:37:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXYIv-00029q-3c for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:37:09 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXYIt-00027h-Cp for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:37:07 +0000 Received: from mimolette.dalibo.net ([212.85.157.144] helo=mail.dalibo.com) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXYIm-0001Zs-4p for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:37:06 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (unknown [118.179.234.203]) by mail.dalibo.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 427A12C0110; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:36:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call To: Andres Freund Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-hackers References: <12302.1500132157@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20170717072629.dqykbsot2irdob7c@alap3.anarazel.de> <20170717145710.cm32m4yn555hsoxd@alap3.anarazel.de> <8f111719-5865-a023-61f6-f0c10bdfef55@dalibo.com> <20170718120409.wef57vpdhpzpkjfp@alap3.anarazel.de> From: Julien Rouhaud Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:35:43 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170718120409.wef57vpdhpzpkjfp@alap3.anarazel.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On 18/07/2017 14:04, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-07-17 23:04:43 +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> Is it v11 material or is there any chance to make it in v10? > > I think it'd make sense to apply the first to v10 (and earlier), and the > second to v11. I think this isn't a terribly risky patch, but it's > still a relatively large change for this point in the development > cycle. I'm willing to reconsider, but that's my default. Agreed. -- Julien Rouhaud -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers